The recent history of campaign finance reform at
the federal level has been a tale of frustration. Members of one Congress after another promised reform
but failed to adopt a major piece of legislation. In 1992, Congress did finally pass a bill, only to see President George Bush veto it. As a result, there has
been no significant change in the law governing the
financing of federal campaigns since 1979 (document 2.12), despite an increasingly widespread consensus that the system needs a basic overhaul.

The experience at the state level has been a different story. Since 1990, a majority of states have
reformed their campaign finance laws. States have
responded to many of the same pressures witnessed
in national elections--rising campaign costs,
underfunded challengers, the growing influence of
large donors, and an increase in independent expenditures--by adopting new campaign finance
regulations, including many innovative and interesting schemes. These reforms include proposals
often described by federal political observers as "politically infeasible," such as strict contribution limits, spending ceilings, and public financing
programs. Consequently, state campaign finance
laws are increasingly cast as models for federal
reform.

But these state reforms have not gone unchallenged. Many of the most innovative statutes have
been taken to court, where judges, following the
Supreme Court's lead in Buckley v. Valeo ( 424 U.S. 1 [ 1976]; see document 3.1), have often struck down
key provisions as violating the First Amendment.
These court decisions have limited the alternatives
for future reform that are available to legislators and
have led a number of states to adopt more comprehensive, publicly funded campaign finance systems
in an effort to withstand any future judicial scrutiny. The judicial response to state legislation has
also led some advocates of reform to search for new
innovations, such as proposals to provide free
broadcast time to candidates. These proposals have
broadened the scope of the campaign finance debate and encouraged new ways of thinking about
how to improve political finance.

THE STATES REFORM

State elections have not been immune from the financial patterns and problems that have characterized recent federal elections. Like candidates for
federal office, candidates at the state and local level
have seen the costs of campaigning climb dramatically since the 1970s. Total spending by candidates
for statewide offices and state legislative seats grew
from about $120 million in 1976 to an estimated
$540 million in 1988, a 450 percent increase over
twelve years. The rate of increase in the costs of state
elections thus out PACed the increase that occurred
in presidential and congressional campaigns during the same period.

Although much of this state spending was concentrated in the most populous states, especially in California and Texas, rapidly rising campaign costs
were evident throughout the nation, including
smaller states like Idaho and Rhode Island. Conse-

Print this page

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary
to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution.
We are sorry for any inconvenience.